Arena Profile: Linda Sanchez

Recognized by her colleagues and the national media as a leading voice on judiciary, labor and trade matters, Linda Sánchez has represented California’s 39th Congressional district since 2003.

Now in her third term, Sánchez continues her policy focus as Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law (CAL), where she has helped lead the Congressional investigation into the Bush Administration’s firing of nine United States Attorneys in 2006. Sánchez has also brought greater scrutiny to the misuse of arbitration and has advanced legislation to address the mortgage crisis through modest changes to existing bankruptcy law. A former labor lawyer, she has also been a central leader in recent Congressional efforts to reshape this country’s trade model.

The sixth of seven children, Sánchez was born in the City of Orange to immigrant parents from Mexico. She holds a BA in Spanish Literature from the University of California, Berkeley, and a law degree from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Sánchez’ service in the U.S. House of Representatives is historic as she proudly works with her sister Loretta, a Congresswoman from the 47th District of California. They are the first sisters and the first women of any relation to ever serve in Congress.

Linda Sanchez's Recent Discussions

Arizona: Pariah state or mainstream?

Polls that pose questions in the third person, rather than first person, force people to think in terms like, “them” or “those people” rather than “me” or “someone I know.” I’d like to see what results a poll would have if we asked people to think about what it would be like if they experienced this personally.

For example: say you’re out for your morning jog, you get called over by a policeman who then asks for your proof of citizenship. Since you just ran out of your house for a quick jog, you don’t have anything on your body but your iPod, so you’re arrested for failure of proof of citizenship and taken to jail and threatened with deportation. How do you feel now?

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll shows that the majority, 70%, of Hispanics somewhat oppose the Arizona law. Clearly, as Hispanics, we understand that this type of law doesn’t secure our border, but only will only lead to discrimination and racial profiling of citizens with darker skin. Because the law does not – and frankly cannot –state exactly what an American citizen looks like, Arizona’s attempt to prove some kind of ideological purity is completely unconstitutional. Even Republicans like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rick Perry, whose states represent large Hispanic populations, know that laws like this will only create resentments toward their party that will last for generations.

The massive protests and boycotting of Arizona along with polls that show Americans support the state’s new law, only show that the country as a whole is ready to get something done on comprehensive immigration reform.”

The Stupak abortion funding amendment: Does it help or harm or just complicate chances of passing a healthcare bill? Bonus: Do you like it or loathe it?

Has Congress become like an episode of Mad Men? The Stupak Amendment slams women back to a time of stenographs and unsafe abortions. It represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled.

It is truly disappointing to see women’s reproductive rights on the table as a bargaining chip for health care reform. It is equally disappointing that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was let in the room to bargain, then ended up writing the law.

This is a sharp deviation from the reasonable compromise Congress had already agreed upon and an unwarranted intrusion into decisions that should be left between patients and their doctors.

Women are already not getting the care that they need. They fear the rise in health care costs and their associated premiums. Making it unaffordable for poorer women to have abortions just means that they will suffer the consequences of illegal and life threatening procedures.

I agree with President Obama that we need a health care bill, not an abortion bill. Promised health care reform shouldn’t be a bill for 49 percent of the population and a partial bill for the other 51 percent.

The Ricci Case: reaction

Plus, today's question: With the field thinning, can you name four plausible GOP presidential candidates?

June 29, 2009

On the Ricci decision: "Buried in all the 'reverse racism' attacks Republicans are trying to cultivate is the fact that the promotion tests were flawed. The regatta question is nothing new in decades of critique of cultural bias. In fact, until recently, the SAT continued to use items about polo mallets, lacrosse, and regattas. How likely is a poor kid from the inner city to spend his or her weekend attending a regatta? I'll never forget taking one standardized test and being asked a question where the correct answer was; church: silence. Growing up on the west coast and attending masses where mariachi music filled the room, my church was anything but silent. Culturally-loaded tests don't reveal career potential but rather socio-economic class and background. No one should be surprised then when a city decides to throw out a test because only one type of person was able to pass.

In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg mentions that better tests in other cities have produced less racially skewed results. The firefighters who were able to pass the test had no vested right to a promotion and no other persons have received promotions in preference to them. The City of New Haven and the Judges who upheld the city's action were right to notice that one test produced a flawed result. It was part of an ongoing inequality in the New Haven fire department where out of 21 fire captains, only one was African-American. We should be applauding them for recognizing a cultural bias before it produced any real damage. Unfortunately, today the Supreme Court took a step back in the progress society has made by giving the regatta question a bewildering comeback."

POLITICO Debate: The Employee Free Choice Act-Rebuttals

“It’s funny that some of the same business leaders who wrecked the economy now tell us we can’t pass the Employee Free Choice Act—that if we allow card check it will ruin their companies. They’ve said that the Employee Free Choice Act is a “US company killer.” Now, I value expert testimony -- and assuredly -- the current crop of industry leaders are experts on how to ruin their companies, but this is simply wrong.

Opponents tell us they are fighting for the sanctity of the secret ballot. But that is not what is at issue. The Employee Free Choice Act does not prohibit secret ballots. Instead, it gives workers - rather than bosses - the choice of whether and when to have a secret ballot. Employees, not employers, will get to dictate the terms by which workers organize. The Employee Free Choice Act will level the playing field, nothing more and nothing less.

And just last week, one business went to a greater length—essentially creating a hostage situation by threatening to pull a contract with Boeing—if Congress passes measures that help workers organize. Well, FedEx, we do not negotiate with hostage takers. This kind of corporate culture is not morally right, nor respectful of employees’ human rights.

Under current law the ability of an employer to manipulate employees in the workplace is greater than the ability of non-unionized workers to make their own decisions. Threats and intimidation are rampant and present. The Employee Free Choice Act tells employers and management to mind their business—not our rights. If they spend less time trying to keep unions out, maybe they can use that extra time to focus on making their businesses work better.”

The President's address to Congress: how did he do? And how about Jindal?

Overall, looking at President Obama and Governor Jindal’s speeches, the contrast in tone, substance and being in touch with the American people was striking. To put this in Oscar movie terms, President Obama won best picture. Governor Jindal was Gigli.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.